On Wed, Jun 30, 1999 at 01:57:36AM +0100, Philip Hands wrote:
> Here's my problem. Subverting the process by proposing something that is
> tangential to ones aims seems plain wrong to me. We're not sneaky politicians
> here, so why are we acting like them ?
>
> You went on on to say two other things:
>
> 1) the logo swap was aired during the vote.
> 2) the Modified swirl lost, so should be discounted
>
> Where was the swap discussed?
>
> Let me guess: On debian-vote prior to it being published on the archive pages?
> Would that also be the hiding place that was found for the definition of
> ``Modified Swirl'' ?
>
> Is anyone else feeling just a little disenfranchised here?
[...]
This was a snafu. Listmaster is looking into putting the complete
archives on the web. And if any developer wants to search them, the
archives in the usual location on master are complete.
> As it happens, I voted for Swirl over Modified Swirl at the time, and didn't
> bother to change it because I couldn't imagine that anyone was going to try to
> use the relative ordering as significant, given the cock-up of the vote page
> for the bulk of the voting period.
I think you are confusing what the current vote is about. The modified
swirl uses the bottle on neither logo. The swapped swirl would use the
bottle on the official logo.
> What I don't think we have a consensus on is how precisely that logo is to be
> deployed, or whether there should be two licenses, or whether one of them
> should include a bottle.
>
> Looking at the voting record, only 21 people listed both Swirl and Dual as 1.
> These are the only people you can claim definitely wanted the bottle for some
> purpose, and some of them may have actually wanted it the way it is, not
> swapped.
But the Dual logo vote happened first, and was already decided when the
New Logo vote occurred. That's not a valid conclusion.
> In fact there is a much stronger case for suggesting that we agreed that there
> should be two licenses, since at least it was completely clear what that vote
> was about, and yet this latest vote seems likely to put one of those licenses
> out to pasture, along with the bottle that will never be used.
The bottle WILL be used. By some vendors, at least. I have every
intention of using it if I ever do something deserving an Official
logo.
Dan
/--------------------------------\ /--------------------------------\
| Daniel Jacobowitz |__| SCS Class of 2002 |
| Debian GNU/Linux Developer __ Carnegie Mellon University |
| dan@debian.org | | dmj+@andrew.cmu.edu |
\--------------------------------/ \--------------------------------/